134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32364713)
1. Assessing the Performance of Mixed Strategies To Combine Lipophilic Molecular Similarity and Docking in Virtual Screening.
Vazquez J; Deplano A; Herrero A; Gibert E; Herrero E; Luque FJ
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Sep; 60(9):4231-4245. PubMed ID: 32364713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A Hybrid Virtual Screening Protocol Based on Binding Mode Similarity.
Anighoro A; Bajorath J
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1824():165-175. PubMed ID: 30039406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Merging Ligand-Based and Structure-Based Methods in Drug Discovery: An Overview of Combined Virtual Screening Approaches.
Vázquez J; López M; Gibert E; Herrero E; Luque FJ
Molecules; 2020 Oct; 25(20):. PubMed ID: 33076254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
Perola E; Walters WP; Charifson PS
Proteins; 2004 Aug; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Three-Dimensional Similarity in Molecular Docking: Prioritizing Ligand Poses on the Basis of Experimental Binding Modes.
Anighoro A; Bajorath J
J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Mar; 56(3):580-7. PubMed ID: 26918284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions?
Zhenin M; Bahia MS; Marcou G; Varnek A; Senderowitz H; Horvath D
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Sep; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Large scale free energy calculations for blind predictions of protein-ligand binding: the D3R Grand Challenge 2015.
Deng N; Flynn WF; Xia J; Vijayan RS; Zhang B; He P; Mentes A; Gallicchio E; Levy RM
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):743-751. PubMed ID: 27562018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Benchmark of four popular virtual screening programs: construction of the active/decoy dataset remains a major determinant of measured performance.
Chaput L; Martinez-Sanz J; Saettel N; Mouawad L
J Cheminform; 2016; 8():56. PubMed ID: 27803745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Improving Docking-Based Virtual Screening Ability by Integrating Multiple Energy Auxiliary Terms from Molecular Docking Scoring.
Ye WL; Shen C; Xiong GL; Ding JJ; Lu AP; Hou TJ; Cao DS
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Sep; 60(9):4216-4230. PubMed ID: 32352294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors.
Krüger DM; Evers A
ChemMedChem; 2010 Jan; 5(1):148-58. PubMed ID: 19908272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Improving docking results via reranking of ensembles of ligand poses in multiple X-ray protein conformations with MM-GBSA.
Greenidge PA; Kramer C; Mozziconacci JC; Sherman W
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2697-717. PubMed ID: 25266271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Highly Flexible Ligand Docking: Benchmarking of the DockThor Program on the LEADS-PEP Protein-Peptide Data Set.
Santos KB; Guedes IA; Karl ALM; Dardenne LE
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Feb; 60(2):667-683. PubMed ID: 31922754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Nonlinear scoring functions for similarity-based ligand docking and binding affinity prediction.
Brylinski M
J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Nov; 53(11):3097-112. PubMed ID: 24171431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparing sixteen scoring functions for predicting biological activities of ligands for protein targets.
Xu W; Lucke AJ; Fairlie DP
J Mol Graph Model; 2015 Apr; 57():76-88. PubMed ID: 25682361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Binding mode similarity measures for ranking of docking poses: a case study on the adenosine A2A receptor.
Anighoro A; Bajorath J
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Jun; 30(6):447-56. PubMed ID: 27334985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Fast Rescoring Protocols to Improve the Performance of Structure-Based Virtual Screening Performed on Protein-Protein Interfaces.
Singh N; Chaput L; Villoutreix BO
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Aug; 60(8):3910-3934. PubMed ID: 32786511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comprehensive comparative assessment of 3D molecular similarity tools in ligand-based virtual screening.
Jiang Z; Xu J; Yan A; Wang L
Brief Bioinform; 2021 Nov; 22(6):. PubMed ID: 34151363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
